808 F. Supp. 2d 262
D.D.C.2011Background
- Greenpeace sues Dow, Sasol, Ketchum, Dezenhall, and Individual Defendants for damages over alleged corporate espionage aimed at hindering Greenpeace campaigns.
- BBI, a private security firm, allegedly performed surveillance, intrusions, and theft of Greenpeace documents on behalf of Corporate Defendants.
- Documents and information were obtained via dumpster diving, false pretenses, and surveillance, then shared among defendants.
- Plaintiff asserts RICO violations (§1962(c) and §1962(d)) and state-law claims for trespass, invasion of privacy, conversion, trespass to chattel, and misappropriation of trade secrets.
- Court granted motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; the complaint was dismissed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greenpeace state a RICO claim through predicate acts | Greenpeace contends actions of theft, wire fraud, and interstate transport of stolen goods satisfy RICO | Defendants argue predicates do not causally connect to Greenpeace injuries; theft is state law and not a RICO predicate | Counts Six–Nine dismissed for lack of proximate causation |
| Proximate causation for interstate transportation of stolen goods under §2314 | Transport of stolen documents caused injuries to Greenpeace’s property value | Injury linked to theft, not transport; transport across state lines is the predicate act, but no direct link to damages | Dismissal on proximate causation; no direct link between interstate transport and Greenpeace injuries |
| Wire fraud predicate acts under §1343 as RICO predicates | Rogers’ forwarding of confidential emails from CLEAN to BBI injured Greenpeace | Direct victim was CLEAN, not Greenpeace; damages too remote to Greenpeace | Dismissal for lack of proximate causation |
| Conspiracy claims under §1962(d) fail where §1962(c) claim fails | Conspiracy to violate RICO alleged | No viable §1962(c) injury connection, so §1962(d) fails | Counts Seven and Nine dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992) (proximate causation required direct relation between injury and conduct)
- Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (2006) (direct link between predicate act and injury required; remote injuries not recoverable)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) (standing requires injury caused by the RICO violation)
- Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) (reliance not required for certain predicate-act claims in RICO)
- Hemi Grp., LLC v. City of New York, 130 S. Ct. 983 (2010) (proximate causation and direct relation emphasized in RICO)
- United States v. Alston, 609 F.2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (definition of wire fraud elements; direct victim requirement)
- HMK Corp. v. Walsey, 828 F.2d 1071 (4th Cir. 1987) (federalization concerns and limits of RICO reach over state-law offenses)
- Gross v. Waywell, 628 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (federalism concerns in extending RICO reach)